work, not only for the cities, but for the country at large, in bringing to our foreign population a consciousness of what American ideas are and stand for. Much of the best work in this direction is done not alone through books but through lectures and great free public lecture systems such as those conducted by the Board of Education in New York City and by the public library of Philadelphia are coming to be more and more important as factors in the education of all classes of citizens. For the illustrated lecture can reach many where the book will fail. All this work is far removed from propaganda, and many of the people in the audiences will come to these lectures chiefly as a means of recreation-a most excellent reason. Lectures on other cities, with pictures and incidental reference to all kinds of civic improvements carry with them unconsciously the seeds for future progress among the thousands who hear them. Another important factor in lectures, as well as books, periodicals, etc., is the appeal to, and the arousing of, the imagination. Woods Hutchinson has well said, "A stolid, impenetrable, pachydermatous imagination is the greatest foe of progress and enemy of human welfare." Some of our public libraries-and Newark, N. J., is perhaps the best example-are doing a most splendid work in developing Developing in the people of the city a city consciousness. It is a fact that most of the people in our cities have little conception of what their city is or stands for. The work that is being done, and is still to be done in this direction, is largely pioneer work. Most of the work libraries have done so far has been through lectures and exhibitions, but Newark has gone even further. The public library of that city, because satisfactory material for the purpose did not exist (and this is true of almost every city), has had written and has published and widely circulated books and pamphlets which give the people, and particularly the rising generation, a consciousness of how the city came to be, why it is what it is, and what it hopes to be. One reason why the library can do work of this kind better than any other municipal institution is the one, so well expressed in a recent arictle in the Architectural Record, that "in any mod ern American city the public library is the institution which is most representative of the aspirations of the community;" for the public library is the one institution that belongs to all the people, something that cannot be said of our public schools in cities where sometimes one-third or more of the children are going to private or parochial schools. The primary business of our cities, however, is not economic administration-important as that is-but the making of citizens -intelligent, industrious, healthy and happy men and women. In this business the city of the future will concern itself more and more with social problems primarily, and with financial and administrative problems secondarily, to the extent that questions of finance and administration relate to fundamental social problems. The ideal city of the future will be the city where every man will be willing to have every other man in the city as his next-door neighbor-willing because every other man will be worthy-worthy in intelligence, in healthfulness, in cleanliness, and in character. In the civic development which will produce this city of the future the public library is one (I shall be modest) of the most important factors. NOTE. After reading this paper Mr. Ranck used about three dozen lantern slides to describe and illustrate in greater detail some of the points made in the paper. The slides used referred to work being done by the libraries of Newark, Hagerstown, Md., Pittsburg, Detroit, and Grand Rapids. By AUGUSTUS RAYMOND HATTON, Ph. D., Professor of Political Science in Western Reserve University. From the standpoint of the suppression of the liquor traffic, Ohio has a very thoroughgoing series of statutes. Beginning with residence districts within cities as the in Ohio Local Prohibition smallest unit, provision is made, in addition, for local option based upon the city, the township, or the county. It would not seem possible to add much to these provisions in the way of local veto on the traffic except, perhaps, to authorize a vote by wards within cities and to bestow upon city councils the power to exclude the saloon from the city as a whole or from such parts as the council might designate. The latter power cities in Ohio at one time possessed. Councils in some of the smaller places exercised the prerogative, and their action was upheld by the courts. However, when the new municipal code was adopted in 1902, following the judicial overturn of the system of special legislation for cities, the power to prohibit was not specifically granted. The code now provides that cities shall have power, "to regulate ale, beer, porter houses and shops and the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage." This power to regulate has been held not to confer upon councils the right to prohibit the liquor traffic even in certain sections of the city.2 An election upon the question of the suppression or authorization of the liquor traffic in a county may be had upon the petition of thirty-five per cent of the qualified electors. The election must be a special one and a majority of the votes cast at such an election, if against the continuance of the traffic, renders it unlawful to sell or give away intoxicating liquor within the county after thirty days from the date of the election. Once an election 1 Burckholder v. McConnelsville, 20 O. S., 308; Alliance v. Joyce, 49 O. S., 7. 2 Berning v. Norwood, 72 O. S., 593. has been held, whatever the result, another cannot be had for three years.1 The township option provision applies only to such townships as lie outside of municipal corporations and, consequently, does not greatly concern us here. However, for the sake of completeness, it may be said that in such townships an election may be called upon the petition of one-fourth of the voters. The other features of the law are substantially the same as those applying to counties, except that a second election may be held after two years.2 A local option election may be called for an entire municipality upon petition of forty per cent of the voters. In this case, also, the election is a special one, a majority of the votes cast is decisive and another election cannot be held within two years." The final unit for the right of local option is the residence district within municipal corporations. The method here is by petition alone. Whenever a majority of the electors within a residence district petition that the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage be prohibited therein or, if already prohibited, that it be permitted, the traffic is suppressed or authorized as the case may be. The statute carefully safeguards the marking-out of such districts by petitioners, indicates what is and what is not residence territory, and provides that, except in certain cases, petitions may not be filed as to the same territory oftener than once in two years.* The enforcement provisions accompanying these local option laws are also fairly comprehensive. In addition to the usual law-enforcing powers, which apply to these laws in common with those relating to other offences, local officers are granted powers by several statutes designed especially to facilitate the suppres Enforcement sion of violations of local option laws. A socalled "search and seizure" law makes it obligatory upon mayors, justices of the peace and 1 General Code of Ohio, 1910, secs. 6108, 6112, 6115. 2 Id., secs. 6119, 6123, 6125. 3 Id., secs. 6127, 6131, 6136. ♦ Id., secs. 6140, 6156, 6158, 6160, 6163. judges of certain courts to issue a warrant for the search of any premises in regard to which any person makes affidavit that he believes intoxicating liquors are there dispensed, "in violation of any local option law in such county." A warrant so issued must be directed to some officer, competent to serve criminal process, designated by the complainant. This power to order searches, and the seizures that may result therefrom, may be put into operation against suspected violators of any of the local option laws which have been described. Furthermore, any officer having power to serve criminal process may, upon his personal information, and without warrant or affidavit being filed, search any place where he believes intoxicating liquors are kept with the intention of dispensing them contrary to law.1 A statute adopted last year provides that the prosecuting attorney in any county which has voted to suppress the liquor traffic may appoint detectives to aid in getting evidence against violators of the county option law. Detectives so appointed are completely under the control of the prosecuting attorney, except that they may not be paid more than one hundred and twentyfive dollars per month. If the prosecuting attorney fails to appoint detectives the probate judge may do so. In either case the salaries of such secret service officers must be paid out of the county fund upon the warrant of the prosecutor or judge making the appointment.2 In order to escape a difficulty often encountered in the trial of liquor cases, two important features have been added to the Ohio laws. The more important violations of local option laws may be brought to trial without indictment by a grand jury or information by the prosecutor. The filing of an affidavit before the proper judge is the only formality required. Moreover, unless imprisonment is a part of the penalty, common pleas and probate judges have authority to try cases for the violation of local option laws without a jury. The result of this is that in the majority, if not all, of such cases juries may be dispensed with." 1 Id., secs. 6169, 6182. |